heart wrote:I have no problem with this except that I personally feel incapable to, among the huge amount of worldly Dharma systems that exist, even guess which are of short term or long term benefit. I certainly can't say if any of them will eventually lead to liberation.

At the risk of sounding totally wishy-washy, imo, it doesn't really matter. There is a tendency in spirituality, certainly among practitioners with the courage and adjacent hubris to strive for anything of an 'ultimate' sort, to assume that the highest of the highest is what we all should strive for.

But really, outside the abstraction of system or attainment, on the ground where people laugh and cry, it is, imo not about that at all. It's just about being as happy as you can be, and if you have some sort of bodhisattva spirit, supporting others in being as happy as they can be. And that's not a formula. Usually, it entails being about as happy as you want to be. That more often than not entails a worldly Dharma and there is nothing wrong with that either. Too often, our ideas of the highest happiness can be come a kind of obstruction to compassion because we become less capable of empathising with lesser, worldly, ideas of happiness and less capable of rejoicing in the happiness found in them.

Personally, I think once people direct themselves into a baseline path of harmlessness, they've attained something truly marvellous. The thought of beings not contributing to the sufferings of others, and being a light of harmlessness for others to follow - It's such a beautiful thing it makes me want to cry. That there are beings taking this much further is even more wondrous. If all y'all reading this can set aside our westerly self-modest ideas of being nothing special for a moment, give yourself a pat on the back for being among the most beautiful and luminous of beings around for having started on such a path and rejoice.

I didn't take Bodhisattva vows just to lead others to liberation alone. I took them to support all beings I can in all good endeavours. My path is just a path of goodness in any shape or form, worldly or otherwise. I practise Buddhism because it strikes me as one the most refined expressions of that and it seems to me that if you cultivate good qualities in sufficient measure it will eventually yield and reveal the heart's innermost desire as being the wish for liberation. But if beings' wish for happiness isn't revealed to them as that, then I support and rejoice for them in any good qualities they cultivate and aspire to. For me, we are all together on the same path of goodness, albeit perhaps with different ideas of what is good and how much we want of it. But these differences are quite trivial to our shared aspiration for goodness.

I don't mind sharing that something that helped broaden my view of all this were bardo memories. Believe it or not, there are bodhisattvas there to help guide a lot of beings whom they care for very deeply. And they support and encourage people seeking liberation just as they support and encourage beings who do not even have a conception of such a thing. All without ulterior ideas about eventually leading them to liberation, etc (though they know that if they keep it up the cultivation of virtue, they will eventually refine the minds to wish for it). There's a real family feel to it. And of course, they don't care if they are seen as bodhisattvas, angels or whatever. All are equally illusory displays for our benefit. The 'Mahayana' project of benefiting all beings is friggin huge. Way larger than any so-called 'Buddhism' in this world.

Then you have beings like Guanyin who actually helps anyone who calls on her for aid, regardless of where they are in life and where they are going. If it can help them, she will. I recall someone telling me whenever he prayed for Guanyin to help relieve his dog and himself from the annoyances of mosquitoes in the summer (the dog in particular was greatly annoyed by this), she would answer and make them go away! That's a compassion that doesn't care a jot about worldly or liberating Dharma paths but simply wishes to aid and support beings in any way possible.

"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hellI would endure it for myriad lifetimes As your companion in practice" --- Gandavyuha Sutra

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

You know for me being Buddhist has nothing to do with belief or intellectual ideas. It is a path. Since I received direct introduction from my Guru 20 years ago I have slowly come to the conclusion that the practices I been working so hard at before receiving direct introduction were actually perfectly designed to make you relax in the natural state.

Sure, never said otherwise.

So you can say that the direct introduction verified Buddhism as a valid path for me and also as a very perfect path.

Again, never said otherwise.

When I applauded your now removed blogpost on the inability to separate Dzogchen and Buddhism, that you wrote in response to Jim Valby teaching "Dzogchen without Buddhism", it was of course a lack of openness on my part.

I did not write that as a reponse to Jim Valby, actually. I wrote that as a response to a title of a program. I removed the post temporarily, because I want to write a response to myself. I don't disagree with many things I said in that post, but I want to clarify somethings.

You see I never had any other spiritual path or religion than Buddhism.

Me either.

I wasn't baptized: me either

never took the first communion: me either

never felt interested i anything but old magic and anarchism: me too

In general I must say that I know very little about spiritual paths compared with the people on this forum for example. I think that is a good thing I learned from this discussion, that one actually is limited in many ways. For this reason it is probably a bad idea to say that you have to be a Buddhist to attain full enlightenment, I certainly don't know that. But I am afraid I can't give up the label "Buddhist" because it is the path I am standing on, it is the methods I use, and its heart of wisdom is the Dzogchen Tantras.

I never said anyone had to change anything. That is not the principle of Dzogchen. Buddhists do not have to change being Buddhist, Xtians do not have to change being Xtians, Hindus do not have to change being Hindus, etc. If they are interested enough to practice Dzogchen, all they have to do is receive introduction and apply the practice, but they don't have change a thing.

Anyway Malcolm, you certainly know how to put the house on fire, it is your dramatic streak. Sorry if I come of as the small minded and limited person I am. So, in to the lions mouth with you Loppon Kunga Namdrol Malcolm Smith and may you only know happiness and go from clarity to clarity. /magnus

My apparent "changes" sometimes take people by suprise, and as person born in a Tiger year, it is impossible for me to march to anyone elses drummer.

I never mean to be dramatic, but I guess some people take things I say as dramatic.

Virgo wrote: What does this discussion have to do with a mid-life crisis at all.Kevin

Noithing of course. But because I decided once and for all to depart from the mask I have maitained for years as an orthodox Buddhist polemicist, people are understandably puzzled, critical, or disbelieving.

Once people have fixed you in their minds, if you do not satisfy their criteria of you, they generally become critical. For example, when I originally defended meat-eating on E-Sangha, some people supported that, others did not. When I went through a phase of having personal issues with eating meat, and discussed it, some people supported it, others did not. When I reversed my thinking about it once and for all, some of the people who supported me in my meat-critical phase were understandably puzzled at my reversal of perspective.

Now, some people are do not like the fact that as far as I am concerned, "Buddhism" is just another limitation. They do not like the fact that I am not holding some sacred place for Buddhism over against non-Buddhist religions. They think that this is some sudden shift on my part. But had they really been paying attention to my posts over the years they would have noted my gradual evolution away from "Buddhism" per se.

They have not understood my basic point at all:

...when you have received direct introduction, and are diligently applying the practice of Dzogchen, it does not matter at all what you beleive while you are not practicing, it does not matter what your intellectual view is. Dzogchen view is not an intellectual posture, it is a personal experience of instant presence, and no amount of "correct" Buddhist thinking will lead you to that personal experience of your primordial state, and no amount of "incorrect" non-Buddhist thinking will prevent you from having that personal experience of your primordial state if you diligently apply the teaching in practice having received direct introduction.

People seem not to realize that this is precisely what is stated in many Dzogchen tantras and upadeshas.

M

Not really. You started this whole thing by saying (gist of) going up a hill by a stream or something how you were struck by the beauty of nature and realized being 50 you suddenly felt full of love for all beings and felt the need to apologize to 3 of the biggest damsi mandalas currently going not to mention saying what you said about opposing the nkt and leaving out others you had attacked/argued with but said you mean them all. However you soon picked up criticizing TNR who according to many including some of your dead and living gurus was a great siddha. So it was a sudden U-turn in your own words which you deny as gradual. This sort of thing happens to many who are actually quite settled and happy. That is the point.

You have had many shifts of position on Dzogchen. First being an orthodox Sakya. Then saying Dzogchen was the highest. Then before e-sangha's parinirvana you suddenly had another U-turn and said you were wrong and "years of study and sitting on your meditation cushion (realizations?) had led you to beleive that in fact Dzogchen was not above other systems and equivalent to the fourth Word empowerment". Then on this forum you had a fourth U-turn saying Dzogchen was the greatest above others in the Buddhist system. Now you are turning left saying you are not a buddhist and Garab Dorje was not a Buddhist and he is who matters to you not Padmasambhava as for Nyingmapas. But your lineage masters would say they got it from Padmasambhava's lineage who said he and Garab were Buddhists!

Also apart from contradictory positions, you are generalizing everyone with the same brush you call "people", as if this is a war and you are in a bunker and apart from a few trusted friends (who switch positions weekly with you) you are under attack. You are not. No one really cares what you choose as best for you and wish the best of luck for you. You are conflating your own context. People are too busy in their daily lives to really be shocked by such personal changing trivia of yours which is not new. But they will defend their POV too just like you. You tarred me with the same brush but I only started posting again because of the turbulence you dramatically started last week. If you look at most of my postings you will see I was supporting many of your positions and saying I have been at this position all along. I am not foaming with paranoia and shouting der folk have betrayed me yet again. But then you start going to another extreme and in the name of respecting all religions and new age fads, you did not respect the conditions of "Buddhists". The masters say respect ALL peoples' conditions and their current karmic views. Also as I said this is not the time to start a crusade against: 1) Buddhists 2) Tibetan Buddhists 3) Institutions of Buddhism and their power politic games (BTW this forum is one too! which you said recently was taken over by your supporters like e-sangha) 4) Nyingmapas who instead of Garab like Padma and became gradualist appeasers. Frankly I do not see the burning desire to fan the flames of these campaigns and I am sure your current mental movements will change. I think you are wasting much of your precious time but no one can tell you anything like this, as ever.

As I said Buddhist is a label but so is Dzogchenpa which you have to concede. Also you quote me saying Buddhism is an illusory upaya, but nirvana and the bhumis are illusory too and as I said the Dzogchen path is also an illusory upaya which you have to accpet too. Buddhist/Buddhism can be a limitation, or not, so can Dzogchen/Dzoghenpa. Hence your base criteria is completely self contradictory. So samo samo, and better have the realization that peoples' various conditions have to be respected. This is a basic realization necessary before other realizations can manifest. The best way to cultivate it is by Buddhist relative bodhicitta methods.

All the best Malcolm.

Last edited by username on Wed May 30, 2012 2:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Malcolm wrote:As ChNN says, if you regard god a symbol of your primodial potentiality, then there is no problem. In any event, you can just keep assuming that your point of view is right util you decide differently. For example, last night I had a discussion with an SMS teacher, and he felt there was no problem at all in including Jesus in your refuge tree.

I didn't want to bring it up, but since it's already here . . . I've heard from quite a few old time DC practitioners, including some SMS teachers, that it indeed IS perfectly OK to include Jesus in the Refuge Tree provided one feels one has learnt anything from him. They all claimed that's precisely what ChNNR teaches. I've also spoken to a person who, if I remember correctly, said or implied that she'd personally asked Rinpoche about it (not due to mere curiosity; she apparently felt torn apart between her 'Buddhist' and 'Christian' leanings and was incapable of letting go of the latter) and Rinpoche told her to unify all her teachers during Guru Yoga, Jesus very much included.

It all may be misunderstanding, distortion or manipulation. But is it really so absurd? I seem to have heard ChNNR saying that Dzogchen Guru Yoga doesn't mean we have to include Jesus in the composite guru figure we visualise - but I've never heard him we shouldn't do so. And why shouldn't one, if one feels some important connection with some form or aspect of Christianity, and yet is very much into Dzogchen? Obviously, the sandal-wearing guy never taught Dzogchen. But if 'all teachers' means also the guy who taught us how to make shoes, why not the Jewish rebel, too, if one considers him a teacher of sorts?

Yes but not everyone you learn some facts from as is claimed here in error. You could watch a film clip of Hitler or Mao or George W. Bush and learn a few statistics or facts you might not know but then you can't stick them up there in the tree and take refuge which BTW is Buddhist. So you have to weed out some and not include all as Malcolm claims.

username wrote:Not really. You started this whole thing by saying (gist of) going up a hill by a stream or something how you were struck by the beauty of nature and realized being 50 you suddenly felt full of love for all beings and felt the need to apologize to 3 of the biggest damsi mandalas currently going not to mention saying what you said about opposing the nkt and leaving out others you had attacked/argued with but said you mean them all.

No, actually this all started because I said that you don't need much besides the five elements, etc.

I think when we hurt the feelings of others without need, we should make apologies. It does not matter of we think they are samaya breakers or whatever. That concept of "samaya breakers" only functions in the Buddhist world. This kind of thing is all completely relative. And really, in the long run, if someone breaks their samaya thay is their business, and not ours.

However you soon picked up criticizing TNR who according to many including some of your dead and living gurus was a great siddha. So it was a sudden U-turn in your own words which you deny as gradual. This sort of thing happens to many who are actually quite settled and happy. That is the point.

I did not criticize TNR, I just said I don't agree with his reasoning about Mt. Meru and so on.

You have had many shifts of position on Dzogchen. First being an orthodox Sakya. Then saying Dzogchen was the highest. Then before e-sangha's parinirvana you suddenly had another U-turn and said you were wrong and "years of study and sitting on your meditation cushion (realizations?) had led you to beleive that in fact Dzogchen was not above other systems and equivalent to the fourth Word empowerment". Then on this forum you had a fourth U-turn saying Dzogchen was the greatest above others in the Buddhist system. Now you are turning left saying you are not a buddhist and Garab Dorje was not a Buddhist and he is who matters to you not Padmasambhava as for Nyingmapas. But your lineage masters would say they got it from Padmasambhava's lineage who said he and Garab were Buddhists!

I didn't really say I was not a Buddhist, I said, actually that nominally I was a Buddhist meaning that other people will still consider me a Buddhist, but that I don't care about that label anymore, that I am not really feeling it. I find it is just a lable that causes separation and limitations. So I don't need it anymore. You are welcome to it.

I never said Padmasambhava does not matter to me, but Garab Dorje is more important.

You tarred me with the same brush

I did not tar you with any brush -- I simpy disagreed with a statement you made about Gaudapada.

If you look at most of my postings you will see I was supporting many of your positions and saying I have been at this position all along.

In the past, yes this is true,

Also as I said this is not the time to start a crusade

No one started a crusade.

As I said Buddhist is a label but so is Dzogchenpa which you have to concede. Also you quote me saying Buddhism is an illusory upaya, but so is nirvana and the bhumis and as I said the Dzogchen path is also an illusory upaya which you you have to accpet too. So samo samo, and better have the realization that peoples' various conditions have to be respected.

Yes, I agree with all of this.

The best way to cultivate it is by buddhist relative bodhicitta methods.

username wrote:Yes but not everyone you learn some facts from as is claimed here in error. You could watch a film clip of Hitler or Mao or George W. Bush and learn a few statistics or facts you might not know but then you can't stick them up there in the tree and take refuge which BTW is Buddhist. So you have to weed out some and not include all as Malcolm claims.

When I first heard this teaching from ChNN in 1992, he said all your teachers, anyone from whom you have learned anything -- he included grade school teachers and so on.

The concept of going for refuge (sharanam) is not strictly Buddhist. Also Hindus go for refuge:

username wrote:Not really. You started this whole thing by saying (gist of) going up a hill by a stream or something how you were struck by the beauty of nature and realized being 50 you suddenly felt full of love for all beings and felt the need to apologize to 3 of the biggest damsi mandalas currently going not to mention saying what you said about opposing the nkt and leaving out others you had attacked/argued with but said you mean them all. However you soon picked up criticizing TNR who according to many including some of your dead and living gurus was a great siddha. So it was a sudden U-turn in your own words which you deny as gradual. This sort of thing happens to many who are actually quite settled and happy. That is the point.

You have had many shifts of position on Dzogchen. First being an orthodox Sakya. Then saying Dzogchen was the highest. Then before e-sangha's parinirvana you suddenly had another U-turn and said you were wrong and "years of study and sitting on your meditation cushion (realizations?) had led you to beleive that in fact Dzogchen was not above other systems and equivalent to the fourth Word empowerment". Then on this forum you had a fourth U-turn saying Dzogchen was the greatest above others in the Buddhist system. Now you are turning left saying you are not a buddhist and Garab Dorje was not a Buddhist and he is who matters to you not Padmasambhava as for Nyingmapas. But your lineage masters would say they got it from Padmasambhava's lineage who said he and Garab were Buddhists!

Also apart from contradictory positions, you are generalizing everyone with the same brush you call "people", as if this is a war and you are in a bunker and apart from a few trusted friends (who switch positions weekly with you) you are under attack. You are not. No one really cares what you choose as best for you and wish the best of luck for you. You are conflating your own context. People are too busy in their daily lives to really be shocked by such personal changing trivia of yours which is not new. But they will defend their POV too just like you. You tarred me with the same brush but I only started posting again because of the turbulence you dramatically started last week. If you look at most of my postings you will see I was supporting many of your positions and saying I have been at this position all along. I am not foaming with paranoia and shouting der folk have betrayed me yet again. But then you start going to another extreme and in the name of respecting all religions and new age fads, you did not respect the conditions of "Buddhists". The masters say respect ALL peoples' conditions and their current karmic views. Also as I said this is not the time to start a crusade against: 1) Buddhists 2) Tibetan Buddhists 3) Institutions of Buddhism and their power politic games (BTW this forum is one too! which you said recently was taken over by your supporters like e-sangha) 4) Nyingmapas who instead of Garab like Padma and became gradualist appeasers. Frankly I do not see the burning desire to fan the flames of these campaigns and I am sure your current mental movements will change. I think you are wasting much of your precious time but no one can tell you anything like this, as ever.

As I said Buddhist is a label but so is Dzogchenpa which you have to concede. Also you quote me saying Buddhism is an illusory upaya, but nirvana and the bhumis are illusory too and as I said the Dzogchen path is also an illusory upaya which you have to accpet too. Buddhist/Buddhism can be a limitation, or not, so can Dzogchen/Dzoghenpa. Hence your base criteria is completely self contradictory. So samo samo, and better have the realization that peoples' various conditions have to be respected. This is a basic realization necessary before other realizations can manifest.The best way to cultivate it is by Buddhist relative bodhicitta methods.

All the best Malcolm.

Thank you, username! All this crusade by Malcolm and his followers make me really tired, and I am not going to read it further. I don't identify myself as being "Buddhist", "Christian", "non Buddhist", "atheist", "anarchist", "conservative", "Dzogchenma" or whatever else. I hate identifications. They are ALL like bars of a cage for me! I have been benefited a lot from Tibetan Buddhism however, and my transition to Dzogchen was very smooth because I had a lot of experience in Vajrayana before. I had benefited from other inner philosophies as well. Each of us has his/her personal path to walk towards what is called "Total Liberation". No need for crusades and Jihads!!! May all beings balance in their golden mean and be liberated by all extremes!

"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour" ~ Padmasambhava ~

Dronma wrote:Thank you, username! All this crusade by Malcolm and his followers make me really tired, and I am not going to read it further. I don't identify myself as being "Buddhist", "Christian", "non Buddhist", "atheist", "anarchist", "conservative", "Dzogchenma" or whatever else. I hate identifications. They are ALL like bars of a cage for me! I have been benefited a lot from Tibetan Buddhism however, and my transition to Dzogchen was very smooth because I had a lot of experience in Vajrayana before. I had benefited from other inner philosophies as well. Each of us has his/her personal path to walk towards what is called "Total Liberation". No need for crusades and Jihads!!! May all beings balance in their golden mean and be liberated by all extremes!

What's funny is that Malcolm just expressed a point of view, not insisting that anyone else adopt it. If there was a jihad, it was by the dedicated religionists in the Buddhist fold that were trying to keep their heads/world view from imploding.

A number of us agreed with what Malcolm has to say. That doesn't make us followers. I have been of a similar frame of mind wrt dzogchen and other systems since the late 80's as I had the good fortune to have a teacher that was neither ethnically Tibetan, nor beholden to Tibetan Buddhist cultural norms.

We can all agree to disagree, but why try to stifle debate simply because one is on the losing side of an argument?

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

Dronma wrote:Thank you, username! All this crusade by Malcolm and his followers make me really tired, and I am not going to read it further. I don't identify myself as being "Buddhist", "Christian", "non Buddhist", "atheist", "anarchist", "conservative", "Dzogchenma" or whatever else. I hate identifications. They are ALL like bars of a cage for me! I have been benefited a lot from Tibetan Buddhism however, and my transition to Dzogchen was very smooth because I had a lot of experience in Vajrayana before. I had benefited from other inner philosophies as well. Each of us has his/her personal path to walk towards what is called "Total Liberation". No need for crusades and Jihads!!! May all beings balance in their golden mean and be liberated by all extremes!

What's funny is that Malcolm just expressed a point of view, not insisting that anyone else adopt it. If there was a jihad, it was by the dedicated religionists in the Buddhist fold that were trying to keep their heads/world view from imploding.

Yes, of course! It is always the fault of the "others".......

Karma Dorje wrote:A number of us agreed with what Malcolm has to say. That doesn't make us followers. I have been of a similar frame of mind wrt dzogchen and other systems since the late 80's as I had the good fortune to have a teacher that was neither ethnically Tibetan, nor beholden to Tibetan Buddhist cultural norms.

We can all agree to disagree, but why try to stifle debate simply because one is on the losing side of an argument?

May all beings balance in their golden mean and be liberated by all extremes!

"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour" ~ Padmasambhava ~

In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used).[citation needed] For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's satyagraha struggle for Indian independence is called a "jihad" in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic); the terminology is also applied to the fight for women's liberation.[15]

regarding hitler, the SS were in Tibet and Hitler admired they way Americans had dealt with their "unwanted" races, however, i'm not quite sure of the origination of the reservation system that exists in both canada and the u.s.

what's next? a discussion on kaizer wilhelm and the book On Secret Service East of Constantinople by Peter Hopkirk? his books Devils on the Silk Road, and Trespassers on the Roof of the World are interesting reads....

scratching thick hair'd head,"if air can be conditioned,like where's the shampoo?"

Personally I have never met Malcolm. And I had no interest at all in joining a Buddhist forum. I have hardly ever read this one before joining. I had read a little of Dhamma Wheel and suffice it to say quickly realized that it was not for me.I had dropped into Zen Forum International ...wished them well in my heart and found the exit post- haste.Then I casually logged on to this forum as a guest one day, and to my surprise and my joy read Malcolms post ..the one where he first signed himself Malcolm instead of Namdrol, and every one of his words rang true, and every one paralleled my own experience. There was a deep sense of recognition.I know without doubt that it also parallels the experience of many of my contemporaries , some of whom are DC members and some who are not.I dont think it suggests a " jaded" or disillusioned approach at all.In one of my first posts I said that in my view it rather represents a maturation in things Dharmic in the west.

" My heart's in the Highlands my heart is not here.My heart's in the Highlandschasing the deer."

It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes some comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

And:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[9]

And:

Some have called for Godwin's law to be renamed Beck's law because of the numerous allusions to Nazi Germany by talk show host Glenn Beck.[16] The Washington Post tallied 202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, according to transcripts, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 uses of "fascism" or "fascist," and another 24 mentions of Joseph Goebbels, all within 18 months. Media Matters used these facts to assert Godwin's Law is no longer relegated to chat rooms but now applies to cable news and other media outlets.[17]

Dronma wrote:All this crusade by Malcolm and his followers make me really tired, and I am not going to read it further.

Firstly, I really don't understand your use of the word 'crusade' here. Malcolm's original posts prompted a lively discussion, in which some views have been expressed. That's all. No crusading here, just (at the very worst) bickering - Malcolm at any rate took pains to stress time and again that he's not attempting to persuade others to share his new perspective.

(Also, since it is he who rejects what he sees as rigid Buddhist orthodoxy in these threads, how could he possibly be 'crusading'?)

Secondly, I'm not sure whom you see as Malcolm's 'followers' - and what you're implying (if anything) when using the word. I, for one, however greatly indebted to Malcolm I am, follow ChNNR's teachings - and so does Malcolm. I don't think it is Malcolm who has ever had any 'followers' at DW, though there may be people who share his current views (or used to share his former convictions). It strikes me as especially inaccurate to talk about his 'followers' right now - when he's so clearly alienated many or most of his former fellow travellers.